Measurement of Trabecular Bone Score of the Spine by Low-Dose Imaging System (EOS®): A Feasibility Study

Potential endpoints for assessment of bone health in persons with neurofibromatosis type 1

Neurofibromatosis type 1 is a genetic syndrome characterized by a wide variety of tumor and non-tumor manifestations. Bone-related issues, such as scoliosis, tibial dysplasia, and low bone mineral density, are a significant source of morbidity for this population with limited treatment options. Some of the challenges to developing such treatments include the lack of consensus regarding the optimal methods to assess bone health in neurofibromatosis type 1 and limited data regarding the natural history of these manifestations. In this review, the Functional Committee of the Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis International Collaboration: (1) presents the available techniques for measuring overall bone health and metabolism in persons with neurofibromatosis type 1, (2) reviews data for use of each of these measures in the neurofibromatosis type 1 population, and (3) describes the strengths and limitations for each method as they might be used in clinical trials targeting neurofibromatosis type 1 bone manifestations. The Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis International Collaboration supports the development of a prospective, longitudinal natural history study focusing on the bone-related manifestations and relevant biomarkers of neurofibromatosis type 1. In addition, we suggest that the neurofibromatosis type 1 research community consider adding the less burdensome measurements of bone health as exploratory endpoints in ongoing or planned clinical trials for other neurofibromatosis type 1 manifestations to expand knowledge in the field.

FR. DEXA and Imaging in Osteoporosis

Background

Reduced bone density and increased fragility are hallmarks of osteoporosis, making the disease a major public health concern. The disease necessitates early diagnosis and appropriate therapy depend on an accurate evaluation of bone health. Essential tools for assessing osteoporosis include dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and other imaging modalities.

Methods

This chapter focuses on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and other imaging methods as essential tools for assessment of osteoporosis. The chapter also explores complementary imaging modalities that help overcome limitation of DEXA by providing insights into the microarchitecture and bone quality.

Results

T-scores, used to categorise bone health, are determined by DEXA by comparing bone mineral density to age-matched standards. Bone mineral density (BMD) is the most common indicator of bone health; nevertheless, DEXA may misclassify bone health owing to reasons other than BMD. These constraints may be overcome with the use of complementary imaging methods, which provide information on the microarchitecture and quality of bone. The evaluation of bone structure is aided by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT), which produces precise 3D images of the trabecular and cortical bone compartments. Independent of traditional methods of gauging fracture risk, quantitative ultrasonography (QUS) uses an analysis of the characteristics of sound waves to determine bone health. Diagnostic precision is improved by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to its ability to view bone marrow and trabecular structure without the use of ionising radiation.

Discussion

New methods, such as the trabecular bone score (TBS), examine bone texture and provide more data on the likelihood of fracture than conventional DEXA. By modelling bone strength using imaging data, finite element analysis (FEA) provides a biomechanical viewpoint on breakage probability. These combined methods boost diagnostic accuracy and pave the way for individualised treatment plans. Imaging helps with therapy monitoring as well as diagnosis. By monitoring bone density and structure over time, therapy effectiveness or course corrections may be quickly identified. The availability of sophisticated imaging techniques and the standardisation of procedures provide obstacles not withstanding their advantages. Ongoing work is being done to solve these issues and standardise and disseminate these methods in a variety of contexts.

Conclusion

The evaluation of osteoporosis is significantly aided by DEXA and other imaging methods. While DEXA is still the gold standard for diagnosing osteoporosis, other imaging techniques may shed light on bone health in greater detail. These methods improve fracture risk prediction and treatment assessment by providing information on bone architecture, quality, and strength. Integration of several imaging modalities shows potential for bettering osteoporosis therapy and patient outcomes as the field develops.

Assessment of dynamic balance during walking in patients with adult spinal deformity

PURPOSE

To assess dynamic postural alignment in ASD during walking using a subject-specific 3D approach.

METHODS

69 ASD (51 ± 20 years, 77%F) and 62 controls (34 ± 13 years, 62%F) underwent gait analysis along with full-body biplanar Xrays and filled HRQoL questionnaires. Spinopelvic and postural parameters were computed from 3D skeletal reconstructions, including radiographic odontoid to hip axis angle (ODHA) that evaluates the head's position over the pelvis (rODHA), in addition to rSVA and rPT. The 3D bones were then registered on each gait frame to compute the dynamic ODHA (dODHA), dSVA, and dPT. Patients with high dODHA (> mean + 1SD in controls) were classified as ASD-DU (dynamically unbalanced), otherwise as ASD-DB (dynamically balanced). Between-group comparisons and relationship between parameters were investigated.

RESULTS

26 patients were classified as ASD-DU having an average dODHA of 10.4° (ASD-DB: 1.2°, controls: 1.7°), dSVA of 112 mm (ASD-DB: 57 mm, controls: 43 mm), and dPT of 21° (ASD-DB: 18°, controls: 14°; all p < 0.001). On static radiographs, ASD-DU group showed more severe sagittal malalignment than ASD-DB, with more altered HRQoL outcomes. The ASD-DU group had an overall abnormal walking compared to ASD-DB & controls (gait deviation index: 81 versus 93 & 97 resp., p < 0.001) showing a reduced flexion/extension range of motion at the hips and knees with a slower gait speed and shorter step length. Dynamic ODHA was correlated to HRQoL scores.

CONCLUSION

Dynamically unbalanced ASD had postural malalignment that persist during walking, associated with kinematic alterations in the trunk, pelvis, and lower limbs, making them more prone to falls. Dynamic-ODHA correlates better with HRQoL outcomes than dSVA and dPT.

Performance of bone mineral density and trabecular bone score in assessment of bone quality in Egyptian male patients with ankylosing spondylitis

Background

Osteoporosis is a common complication of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) even in the early stages of disease; however, previously published studies have demonstrated large discrepancies in the reported incidence of osteoporosis, based on measurement of bone mineral density (BMD). The aim of the present study was to compare bone quality using trabecular bone score (TBS) between AS patients and healthy controls and to evaluate factors associated with TBS in patients with AS.

Results

Ankylosing spondylitis patients had significantly lower BMD and T score at the neck of femur and lower total hip BMD than controls (BMD p = 0.010 and 0.032 respectively), (T score p = 0.006 and p = 0.025 respectively). The mean TBS was significantly lower in AS patients than in controls (p < 0.001). Lumbar spine TBS was directly correlated with BMI (p = 0.029) and BMD at the neck of femur (p = 0.016) and BMD of total hip (p = 0.007) while inversely correlated with the Bath AS Metrology Index (BASMI) (p = 0.026), the modified Stoke AS Spinal Score (mSASS) (p = 0.029), ESR (p = 0.031), and CRP (p = 0.033).

Conclusion

TBS evaluation detected lower bone quality in the lumbar spine in patients with AS when compared with matched controls, while lumbar BMD failed to identify it. These findings encourage the use of TBS as a beneficial tool to recognize the risk of axial osteoporosis as early as possible in AS patients. Also, we recommend its use for regular follow up of drug treatment for those patients.

EOS® imaging: Concept and current applications in spinal disorders

EOS® imaging is a proprietary imaging technology that was launched in 2007. Based on a gaseous particle detector with a multi-wire proportional chamber, it offers several advantages over other imaging modalities: low dose of radiation, ability to create 3D reconstructions, ability to conduct whole body imaging, high reproducibility in measuring various parameters of alignment and faster imaging time. EOS® imaging is slowly gaining widespread acceptance as its applications in various disorders continue to evolve. It has been found to be particularly useful and has opened up new avenues of research in the field of spinal deformities. This narrative review seeks to provide an overview of the proprietary technology behind EOS® imaging, compare it to existing imaging modalities, summarize its current applications in various spinal disorders and outline its limitations.

Effects of Hip Structure Analysis Variables on Hip Fracture: A Propensity Score Matching Study

The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the hip structural analysis (HSA) levels of patients with those of a hip fracture group. All patients with an initial hip fracture who were older than or equal to 65 years old and admitted to our hospital between March 2018 and January 2019 were eligible for this study. During the study period, 134 hip fracture patients aged 65 years and older were admitted to the study institution, and a total of 51 hip fracture patients were ultimately assigned to the patient group. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), skeletal muscle index (SMI), and vitamin D were matched in the two groups (hip fracture (HF) group vs. non-hip fracture group) using propensity score matching (PSM) without any statistical differences. Following propensity score matching, 51 patients in the HF group and 51 patients in the non-HF group were included in the study, respectively. Hip axis length (p = 0.031), neck-shaft angle (p = 0.043), width of intertrochanter (p = 0.005), and femur shaft (p = 0.01) were found to be significantly higher in the HF group (107.31 (mean) ± 9.55 (standard deviation, SD), 131.11 ± 5.29, 5.57 ± 0.58, and 3.05 ± 0.23, respectively) than in the non-HF group (102.07 ± 14.15, 128.85 ± 5.81, 5.29 ± 0.38, and 2.92 ± 0.23, respectively). However, cross-sectional area (CSA) of femur neck (p = 0.005) and femur shaft (p = 0.01) as well as cortical thickness (CT) of femur neck (p = 0.031) and femur shaft (p = 0.031) were found to be significantly lower in the HF group (1.93 ± 0.44, 3.18 ± 0.83, 0.11 ± 0.02, and 0.38 ± 0.09, respectively) than in the non-HF group (2.12 ± 0.46, 3.57 ± 0.78, 0.13 ± 0.03, and 0.47 ± 0.11, respectively). The HSA showed excellent sensitivity (82.4% to 90.2%). HSA is an important factor in predicting the occurrence of hip fracture. Therefore, not only should bone mineral density (BMD) be considered clinically, but it is also important to look closely at HSA for risk of hip fracture.